Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (Motions to sit in private):—
	The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 14.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members were present, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative.

Nigel Evans: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It is with great pleasure that I present the Bill to the House. The use of drugs in this country has reached crisis levels in parts of our society and it affects us all, whether directly, through family members who are caught in the cycle of addiction, or indirectly, through crime that is fuelled by people's need to buy more drugs. All that is going on against the background of a Government who have sent all the wrong signals on drugs. The reclassification of drugs such as cannabis has sent those wrong signals throughout the country and many people now believe that it is safe to use cannabis. The aim of the Bill is to redress those problems, to give more powers to the police and the courts to combat our drug culture, and to look into the effects of cannabis so that the Government can see that the drug that they have gone soft on is actually quite dangerous and harmful.
	To summarise for my right hon. and hon. Friends, my Bill has three main strands, which I will consider individually: the use of a mandatory seven-year jail sentence if a dealer is caught selling class A drugs for the third time, the use of a custodial sentence for any adult convicted of selling class A drugs to a minor for profit, and the establishment of an independent commission to look into the effects of cannabis and to make recommendations to the Government on its classification.
	Penalties for drug selling are rightly very harsh. Some 85 per cent. of all drug offenders are convicted of unlawful possession, but, although maximum penalties are severe, most offences are dealt with by fines and nearly three quarters of those fines are less than £50. The state of the drug problem in the United Kingdom has shocked me as I have looked into it. In 2002, the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its landmark report on drugs in the United Kingdom, "The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?", found that drugs are easily available. About 4 million people use at least one illegal drug each year and about 1 million people use class A drugs such as heroin, cocaine or ecstasy.
	The cost of those illegal drugs has plummeted in recent years, which has made it even easier for people to get their hands on them. The Independent Drug Monitoring Unit reported that the cost of drugs is at it lowest level for a decade. It highlights that, in 1995, heroin cost £80 a gram and that it now costs £35 a gram. That trend also applies to cocaine, which used to cost £56 a gram in 1995, but now costs £45 a gram. A newspaper recently reported that a line of cocaine is now the same price as a cup of coffee bought from Starbucks. That probably says more about the price of cocaine than about the price of coffee at Starbucks.
	The trafficking of drugs into the United Kingdom has also continued to increase in recent years because organised criminals and gangs are making huge profits at all the stages of getting drugs into the country. The last figures available show that the number of people arrested for trafficking cocaine has doubled. There has also been a large rise in the number of arrests for cannabis and crack cocaine trafficking. So we have a huge problem in our country and on our streets. Cannabis use has risen by more than a third, ecstasy use has doubled and cocaine use has risen by 250 per cent. over the past eight years.
	Evidence clearly shows the amount that drug use has gone up in the past three decades. In 1969, 4 per cent. of people used amphetamines, 2 per cent. used cannabis and less than 0.5 per cent. used other drugs. The British crime survey reported in 2002–03 that a third of 16 to 59-year-olds had tried drugs at least once in their lifetime. It also reports that cannabis is the most frequently used drug in all age groups. About 3 million 16 to 59-year-olds have used cannabis in the past year, with a quarter—about 1.5 million—of 16 to 24-year-olds admitting to using it in the past year.
	The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported in November 2003 that Britain had the highest use of cocaine in Europe, with 7 per cent. of 15 to 24-year-olds admitting to using it recently. Deaths owing to drugs have risen sharply in recent years, too. In 2002, there were 2,685 drug-related deaths in England and Wales—an increase of 19 per cent. compared with the number of such deaths in 1993. That represents 5.1 drug-related deaths per 100,000 of the population in England and Wales.
	An obvious side effect for us all in the war against drugs is the effect that the rise in drug use has on drug-related crime. According to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) in his speech to the House on 18 January this year, about three quarters of hard drug users commit crime to obtain drugs. In February 2002, the Home Office cited figures from a study by York university showing that the cost of drug-related crime in the United Kingdom could be as much as £19 billion a year.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend intend in any part of his analysis to make a comparison with the use of tobacco and alcohol, both as addictive substances and, particularly in the case of alcohol, as contributors to crime? It has always struck me as being rather odd that in any discussion about drugs, we often tend to ignore the fact that substances legally obtainable in this country can in many ways be just as damaging.

Paul Marsden: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, though, that the British crime survey shows that two thirds of violent crime is related to alcohol abuse and use?

Nigel Evans: I concede immediately that there is a serious problem in this country with those who cannot control their alcohol consumption and go on to commit violent crime. That needs to be looked at, particularly in relation to extended licensing hours. We must be ever vigilant against such crime, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has introduced that topic into the debate.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is opening the debate in sterling form, and I congratulate him on obtaining the debate today and presenting his Bill. Does he agree that despite the problems that are faced in our prisons by prisoners who are dependent on drugs and alcohol, it is a great shame that there are no specific accredited alcohol treatment programmes with ring-fenced funding in any of our prisons in England or Wales?

Nigel Evans: I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend. Even people convicted on the first offence of dealing class A drugs ought to receive a custodial sentence, in my view, but at the third offence we leave no discretion to the judges. The sentence is a minimum of seven years, and I hope offenders will receive far more if they are caught persistently selling class A drugs.
	It may be of interest to right hon. and hon. Members if I set out how the provisions of my Bill differ from the provisions of section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. That can be summarised in three points. The provisions of the 2000 Act relate to all drug trafficking offences, as defined in schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The offences listed include offences under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but include other offences, such as importation offences. The Bill focuses on the selling of class A drugs.
	There is an element of discretion for the court in the sentences in relation to offences under section 110 of the 2000 Act. That is not granted in my Bill. A person caught for the third time will go to jail for seven years minimum. There is a requirement in section 110 of the 2000 Act for the convictions for the previous offences to be consecutive, so that two offences tried at the same time would not be treated as two offences for the purposes of the provisions. That is not the case in my Bill. Every crime will be treated individually.
	Drug sellers are the scourge of our society. If we can deter them, we can go some way towards winning the battle. The number of people found guilty or cautioned for drug trafficking offences each year has more than doubled in 12 years. In 1990, 6,680 people were prosecuted or cautioned for trafficking. The figure rose to 14,610 in 2002. In Lancashire in 2002—the most up-to-date figures available—127 people were cautioned for class A offences and 391 were found guilty.
	In Lancashire we have a key initiative that has been set up to look into and tackle the problem of the supply of class A drugs—Operation Nimrod, which was set up in April 2002 and is funded through the street crime initiative. Every day Operation Nimrod deploys two undercover policemen to different areas in Lancashire to make test purchases in the semi-open market. They appear as drug addicts and work undercover to get dealers arrested. It can take up to five months to gather enough evidence to prosecute those people, which is clearly a problem. Since April 2002 there have been 541 prosecutions as a result of the operation, and on average dealers are getting three years' imprisonment. Is that enough, particularly in view of the amount of time spent in getting the convictions?
	I congratulate that high profile scheme on what it has achieved and on the recognition that it has received—it recently won a commendation in the Home Office tackling drugs award. The senior investigation officer for Operation Nimrod, Detective Inspector Roger Price, commented that he saw many drug offenders reoffending, and that it would be a "wonderful development" to see drug dealers receive a mandatory sentence of seven years for their third conviction. He also commented on the fact that dealers are now frightened of Operation Nimrod, and said that they cautiously joke with under-cover policemen when they first make contact by saying, "You're not a member of Nimrod, are you?" The fear of prosecution is one of the greatest fears and deterrents. I urge the Home Secretary to look at such schemes and help ensure that they are extended throughout the country. The Bill would provide a deterrent for drug dealers in respect of reoffending. Many do so, and we must prevent that.
	I want to deal specifically with drugs and children, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned. We have all heard in the news tragic stories about children dying from taking class A drugs. There was the story of Leah Betts dying after taking one ecstasy pill and the harrowing photos of Rachel Whitear after she died taking heroin, lying on her bedroom floor with a needle in her hand, will be with us all for ever. I pay tribute to Rachel Whitear's parents for allowing the photograph to be used in all the newspapers throughout the country, so that people can see that taking heroin is not cool. People should never take it lightly or think that it is fashionable. That young girl lost her life. I congratulate her parents and the parents of Leah Betts on going around the country trying to promote the fact that taking drugs is extremely dangerous.
	Celebrities are mentioned from time to time in relation to drugs and the newspapers have recently been full of people such as Pete Doherty. Anybody who thinks that taking drugs is cool needs only to look at the photographs of Pete Doherty to see the appalling effects that they can have on a talented young musician such as him. In yesterday's papers, Naomi Campbell was talking about her drug addiction and the appalling effects that it had on her character. We wish them both well in coming clean of drugs. I have to mention Robbie Williams, whose music I think is brilliant. I was delighted when his song "Angels" was recently made a "Best of the Brits" song at the Brit awards, but some of his recent comments about drugs leave me cold. I hope that he and people like him realise the huge responsibility that they have throughout the country, as a lot of young people see them as role models. It is serious when people such as him make comments like, "I thought drug taking was cool and it was only because I ballooned up and could not control my weight that I gave it up." That is one of the most irresponsible things that he could have said. He clearly does not appreciate the huge responsibility that he has for young people, who, to be frank, would listen to him far more than to me, on the issue of drugs. I therefore hope that he will look again at the messages that he and other celebrities, whether they are in the realm of music or of sport, send out and at their effect on young people. They should consider the influence that they can have to the good if they start campaigning and educating youngsters against the use of drugs.
	The Department of Health annual survey on drug use, "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England", found that 4 per cent. of all 11 to 15-year-olds reported class A drug use during the previous 12 months. The prevalence of drug use increased sharply with age. Only 8 per cent. of 11-year-olds had used drugs in the past year, compared with 38 per cent. of 15-year-olds. That is why we need tougher sentencing for drug dealers who sell their drugs to minors. We all know that class A drugs are dangerous in the extreme, but their effect on minors is even worse.

Nigel Evans: Absolutely. Such action should have been taken a long time ago. I hope that the police will be given every support in cracking down on anybody who deals drugs to minors, particularly anywhere near schools, where they know young people go. We must be certain that the police will get full support. When parents send their youngsters off to school, the last thing that they would want to think is that their kids will be under any pressure whatever to take drugs. We all know about peer pressure, which is bad enough, but let us ensure that we crack down on dealers who perpetrate crime around schools.
	We have talked about ecstasy, whose effects on youngsters can be harrowing. It can cause body temperatures to rise to dangerously high levels, it is linked to liver, kidney and heart problems, and it can activate urinary infection such as cystitis in women. My Bill will tighten the legislation on seven class A drugs: heroin, crack, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms, methadone and amphetamines prepared for injection. The aim is to prevent today's young people from becoming tomorrow's problem addict drugs users. The Government's own report, "Drugs Guidance for Schools", states:
	"All pupils, including those in primary schools, are likely to be exposed to the effects and influences of drugs in the wider community and be increasingly exposed to opportunities to dry both legal and illegal drugs."
	We know that that is not dispute, but the Bill will make it clear to dealers that they now have a choice—they can deal and face a far tougher sentence than before, or they can stop dealing to the most vulnerable in our society, whether near a school or anywhere else.
	As part of citizenship classes in schools, children are now taught about the harmful effects of drugs. I applaud the Government's guidance on this matter and the hard work of the educators involved. I also pay tribute to the life education initiative. I am a Rotarian in Clitheroe and, through their charity, the Rotarians support life education in schools throughout Lancashire, warning youngsters not only about the effects of drugs, but about other abuses.

Laura Moffatt: If I get the opportunity again to be a Member of Parliament and apply in those ballots, I shall be right behind the hon. Gentleman when he puts his name down.
	I take a special interest in the subject of our debate because, before I entered the House of Commons, I was a registered nurse and I often cared for people who had to be admitted to hospital for a range of diseases and conditions that resulted from drug taking. Having spend a lot of time with those who were sadly addicted to substances, I firmly believed that it was a complex matter that could not be tackled with simplistic responses. Soon after being elected, I became and continue to be one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on drugs. We have done much work on considering the problems of addiction.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has raised some interesting issues. However, his proposed response is too simplistic and does not get under the skin of the problem of substance misuse. I should like to explain why I believe that.
	We all use statistics and statements from groups to support our aims and objectives and leave out the less supportive statistics. I should like to say a little about those whose reaction to the reclassification of cannabis is more favourable. I repeat "reclassification"—I am against any legalisation of drugs. The evidence about not only the physical but the psychological effects of cannabis on people is serious and we should not take it lightly. However, I am in favour of reclassification. The Bill is centred on setting up an organisation effectively to support the hon. Gentleman's view that cannabis should not have been reclassified, but I believe that it is important to decouple cannabis from the most serious, class A drugs that regularly kill people.
	I take a close interest in my drug and alcohol team in West Sussex. It happens to be one of the best in the country because it is always considering how to get information to young people and ensuring that they understand what it is all about. After reclassification, we were all a little nervous about whether it would promote use among young people because they did not understand that cannabis remained an illegal drug. Of course, that did not happen. The Government's work after their £1 million campaign, in which the drug and alcohol teams participated, showed that 93 per cent. of young people completely understood that cannabis remained an illegal drug. They might have continued to take it, but they understood its classification.
	We must consider, therefore, why young people continue to use the drug. After all the years of trying to get under the skin of those who use illegal drugs, we continue to struggle to find solutions, including penalising methods and encouraging people away from use. I took on board the hon. Gentleman's statement about Robbie Williams. We all find it shocking that he was worried simply about getting fat and ugly. I think that he is a bit of all right, so I can understand why getting fat and ugly was a problem for him. However, we are finding that, strangely, young people respond more to messages about body image than to those that say, "You're going to die if you take this." The same applies to smoking. If we tell young women that they will have horrible wrinkles and a saggy bottom by the time they are 40, they start to think about their cigarette smoking. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's anecdote about Robbie Williams was not as damaging as he suggested, but I understand his concern.
	The hon. Gentleman clearly set out two aspects of the Bill. The first element is a "three strikes and you're out" campaign on dealing. We all despise those who make money from the awful trade, out of which it is sadly all too easy to make money. However, I have found that dealing is a complex matter. The dealers with whom I have had most contact in my community—not to buy, of course—are also users. That makes the issue more complex. I hope that I do not appear to be some woolly libertarian who does not take such matters seriously. I am genuinely trying to explain that simply taking punitive measures against dealers does not work. That is why I support doing everything that we can—and everything that the Government are doing—to provide treatment, help and support to users, especially of class A drugs. That is how we encourage people to give up drug taking, so that they no longer have to make money to support their drug use. This is a difficult issue and a simple style of sentencing will not easily make it any better, which is why I am suspicious of that approach. This is not the first time that such an approach has been proposed. Before the 1997 general election, a Bill that was not enacted put forward a similar proposal.

Cheryl Gillan: Will my hon. Friend support me in saying how appalling it was that when we were legislating on this subject earlier this week, the Government allowed a pathetic three hours for Report and Third Reading of the Drugs Bill, which was entirely unsatisfactory. That showed that the Government did not want a reasoned debate on the subject.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. She is right that on a previous occasion, on which we need not dwell, the Government truncated debate, but the very people who were frustrated on that occasion could have turned up today and had a substantial amount of time for debate. These blessed Fridays are the one occasion on which the Government do not control the timetable, and colleagues had an opportunity today to discuss the matter covered by the Bill to which she referred. It is an irony that Members undoubtedly felt frustrated by the Government's attitude, but on the very occasion when they could have been allowed lots of time to debate the matter—today—they apparently found it more important to be elsewhere.
	My puzzlement increases when I think about the extent to which our policy on drugs, broadly defined, has probably been one of the most consistent and massive failures of public policy for several generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley alluded to that and reinforced the point in his speech. We are talking about substances that are illegal and deemed to be extremely harmful to those who take them. Even on my hon. Friend's figures, however, they are more readily available than they have ever been, cheaper than they have ever been, the only beneficiaries are the criminal classes, we raise no tax revenue from them whatever, and they contribute considerably to the level of crime. On every conceivable basis and measure, the drug problem has got worse. We have failed completely, Government after Government and decade after decade, to deal adequately with this problem. That must be one of the most comprehensive failures of policy conceivable in the civilised world. I therefore conclude that our policy direction must be almost completely wrong.
	We apparently cannot prevent these substances from coming in through our borders. When people sell them, we do not deal with them adequately through the justice and criminal system. We fail to raise any taxes from them, and we also apparently fail to persuade people, be they young people or adults, of the evils of these substances and the fact that they should not take them. There are no positives at all. It is a resounding, consistent, sad negative.
	It is suggested that we should try to tighten up our border controls, but that does not seem to work. It is also suggested that perhaps we should increase the penalties on people who use, or more particularly sell, drugs. That does not seem to work either, because the penalties are not sufficient or, more probably—I think that this was what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was hinting—because the judicial system, for some reason that none of us can understand, fails to use the penalties that are available to it. Perhaps it does so because our prisons are already too overcrowded—I do not know. We therefore have no success in that regard.
	Historically, back in the 1920s, our friends in the United States, confronted with what they saw as a similar problem with alcohol, introduced prohibition. In a sense, what we have today is a modern form of prohibition. We are saying, as the United States and the Americans said back in the 1920s, that we believe that these substances are wicked and people should not be able to take them, so we will ban them and make them illegal. What happened with prohibition in the United States? Alcohol appeared glamorous as a result, speakeasies sprang up, the criminal classes benefited because they met the demand, and in the end the Americans had to accept the reality that prohibition simply did not work. Surely that is some sort of lesson for us.
	If we consider the paradox of the status of alcohol and tobacco in our society, the issue becomes even more problematic. Tobacco, in its own way, is just as addictive and harmful to the people who use it as many, if not most, drugs. Alcohol alters behaviour as well as damaging health and having effects on people's behaviour and relationships in just as bad a way as most drugs. Perhaps for historic reasons, however, alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, freely available and sold legally through shops, including the shop of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. They raise tax revenues that go a long way to paying for our national health service, not to say our nuclear weapons and missiles. We also put warnings on alcohol bottles and cigarette packets about the harmful effects of such substances.
	In those cases, we say that it is right to tell our citizenry that such substances, although they are legal and we derive huge tax revenues from them, might be, and almost certainly are, harmful to them. We leave it to their judgment as citizens to decide whether to consume them, while at the same time attempting as best we can to protect young people from using or abusing tobacco and alcohol until they are of an age at which they can make a decision. The paradox must be self-evident.
	We are therefore struggling with a debate today about cannabis and other drugs and substances against a background in which two categories of substance that are in many ways just as harmful are already freely available in our society. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) referred earlier to the possible effect of cannabis use on driving. We acknowledge that in our laws, because although alcohol is a legal substance, we say that if one takes it and drives, one is committing an offence. Therefore, a parallel exists between alcohol and cannabis. The debate is all over the place, and it is not taking us anywhere productive.
	I pulled my hon. Friend's leg earlier about his proposed commission, and I did so for a number of reasons. I am suspicious about commissions anyway, and even more suspicious of experts, as in most cases the advice that they give us seems to be either wrong or contradictory, usually both, and in the end is usually altered on further investigation. I therefore have an innate suspicion of commissions. When my hon. Friend is prepared, in his usual honest and open way, to prejudge the deliberations of his proposed commission, I get even more suspicious. If we are to have a commission of this kind, I would prefer its remit to be broadened to examine the whole subject of drugs, substances, abuse, consumption and the general effects.
	The piece missing from the equation is an adult debate about drugs in modern society. I would go as far as to say—this is usually unspeakable, but I can say it in the Chamber today because I know, with confidence, that it will never be repeated—that surely there is a place for the legalisation of some or all drugs. In many ways, the logic of what I have said would take us in that direction. There should be a debate and argument about whether, were we to legalise such substances and treat them like tobacco and alcohol—to raise revenue from them, put health warnings on them, make them more freely available, decriminalise them and take away the benefits to the criminals—it is at least possible that we might deal with the problem in a much more effective way than we do now, when we are completely failing to deal with it.

Eric Forth: No, because I think that we would get a positive cash flow. The intriguing thing—the hon. Lady will know this better than I—is that it is beyond dispute or debate that the revenues raised from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol far exceed the cost to the national health service of treating the ailments that arise from abuse of such substances. Sad to say, I would probably argue that in the unlikely event that we legalised these substances and taxed them—indeed, it is unlikely that we would even consider debating my suggestion—the same point would apply. The tax revenues raised from them would far exceed the cost of treating through the NHS those who used them. That is a reasonable assumption to make, based on the historical evidence of tobacco and alcohol use.
	I welcome these opportunities to have such a debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley for this one, and from that point of view I welcome his Bill, but I do wish that we took such opportunities to broaden the debate and turn it into a serious one. The sad truth is that we politicians are afraid of articulating this debate in the way that I am suggesting because we assume that there would be a backlash from the electorate. As a result, with a few honourable exceptions—sadly, one particularly honourable exception, who consistently speaks out bravely on this issue is not here today, albeit for a doubtless very good reason—an opportunity for Members to debate this issue is again being missed. I regret that greatly.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill and I will support it today, if only because it would provide a proper vehicle for further such debates. If it goes into Committee, as I hope it will, I will try to amend it to broaden the remit of his proposed commission, so that we can go somewhat in my suggested direction. For that reason alone the Bill is well worth supporting, but sadly, today is an opportunity that has been missed.

Paul Marsden: I accept that that may be true in certain cases, but overall our judiciary does an excellent job. I listened to the recent debate about the Home Secretary's proposal that politicians take decisions on matters such as house arrest. I have to say that I am very nervous about the prospect of politicians getting involved in such decisions because that is the thin end of the wedge. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, however, and we may well need to review the system, but the principle of allowing the judiciary the independence to decide on individual cases on the basis of the evidence before them should be retained.
	I do, however, wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about a commission; indeed, it is Liberal Democrat policy to establish a commission to examine all drugs. I echo what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about the need to widen the remit of such a commission to include all forms of drugs. It should not simply review cannabis as a one-off; rather, it should conduct an ongoing review of all the evidence.

Paul Marsden: On the contrary. I understand where the hon. Lady is trying to lead me, but she is quite wrong. Although it is our intention to legalise cannabis use, that could not come about because the United Nations convention on narcotics use would have to be amended. We would have to abide by international law, so we would not legislate to legalise cannabis because we could not.
	We are also very mindful of the fact that, as I said, such a commission should conduct an ongoing review of the evidence. The long-term effects on mental health in particular—I have a long-standing interest in mental health issues—are not known. More research needs to be done and we need more information and data. If such evidence demonstrated further adverse effects on   mental health, such a commission would have to take that information into account in making its recommendations.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that the current drugs laws simply do not work. The UK has one of the highest rates of illegal drug use in Europe. Some 4 million Britons reportedly used illegal drugs in the last year alone, and it seems that those who want drugs have no difficulty in obtaining them. Crime associated with illegal drugs costs the UK £16 billion a year. Such crimes range from burglaries and robberies by addicts trying to feed their habit, to the very serious violent crime, gun crime and associated culture that seems to be increasing, particularly in our cities.
	The prison population is at a record level and the increases are largely due to the imprisonment of drug offenders. We want a policy that is effective: we want to see addicts break the cycle of drug taking and crime. We must shift resources from the targeting of users and crack down on dealers. We must find the dealers and ensure that they are punished. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley spoke of making them suffer, although I am not sure that we should go too far in that regard.

Paul Marsden: I think that the record will show that I said the number of people in prison for drug offences was on the increase. I was talking about the recent explosion in the prison population. I am happy to stand by the statistics quoted by the hon. Lady, which demonstrate that a huge number of people are being sent to prison for drug-related offences.
	The focus should be on dealers and traffickers, not just on users. As has been said before, if we say—rightly—that we want a tougher approach to drugs, logically we should suggest banning and criminalising alcohol and tobacco, which surely have more harmful effects on society than any other drug group. I would not advocate that, but it is a logical progression. In focusing narrowly on one drug whose effects are minimal, although I accept that they may be harmful—more research is needed—we are wasting an opportunity, and also wasting resources that could allow the police to concentrate on class A drugs. Two or three years ago, the Lambeth project established that over six months about three police officers could use resources to focus on hard drugs after they stopped focusing on cannabis. If that were extended throughout the country, it could have a significant effect on the fight against the real hard drugs that do the damage.
	Every pound spent on treatment saves £3 in costs to the criminal justice system. If the illegal drug structure is dismantled, there will be less street dealing, fewer robberies and less gun crime. The Liberal Democrats supported the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C. Although we acknowledge that cannabis may have certain effects, it is clear that the police should target what is really important. We want a tough approach. For instance, we want to create a new offence of dealing and thereby target the pushers. We want a new offence of dealing near schools to protect children, and an offence of pushing drugs near mental health institutions containing some of the most vulnerable people in society. Prevention is always better than cure. We want a greater emphasis on how resources are used, and we want more help for those who are addicted. They should not simply be punished—we want them to stop reoffending, get on with their lives and improve the quality of their lives.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—known in his home country, Wales, as "Lucky Evans"—on his good fortune in drawing such a high position in the ballot, and on his excellent choice of Bill. Although, like the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), I have never been fortunate enough to do so well in the ballot, we all know of the enormous amount of pressure exerted on Members as soon as their names come up in the lottery. My hon. Friend could have chosen any number of Bills, but by deciding on this topic he has given us the opportunity to discuss drugs that has been sought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Like my right hon. Friend, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Crawley is not accompanied by more members of the all-party parliamentary drugs group—and, although I am sure that the Minister will do justice to the topic, I am sorry to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), is not present, as she is responsible for drug policy.

Cheryl Gillan: I know. I had a discussion with the hon. Lady before she left. Nevertheless, her absence reflects priorities. Given the importance of this subject, it would have been helpful if she had been here today, especially as our debate on the Drugs Bill earlier this week was cut off in its prime.
	Sadly, I suspect that the Minister who is present has no intention of supporting the Bill, and I doubt that the Government will give it any time. Let me issue a challenge to the Minister. I am sure that people both inside and outside the House are aware that at this point in the parliamentary cycle the Bill could easily reach the statute book well before the general election on 5 May—after which, of course, we shall have a chance to introduce and implement our own policies. Indeed, we saw an example of that this week. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is highly controversial, but that did not stop the Government from rushing it through all its stages in double-quick time. If the Government were serious about drugs, my hon. Friend's reasonable and clarifying proposals could easily be dealt with in the same way. Will the Minister do that? I hope she will think about it very carefully, because these are modest proposals.
	The Bill does three things. It imposes a mandatory sentence of seven years on those caught dealing class A drugs for a third time. I tend to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that that is not tough enough, but it sends a clear message. The Bill imposes a custodial sentence on those caught dealing class A drugs to a minor. I—indeed, all Conservative Members—feel strongly about that. The Bill also establishes an independent—that is the key word—commission to examine the effects of cannabis.
	I do not have one friend who is a parent who is not concerned about their child's potential exposure to drugs. I do not know how many parents are in the Chamber today, but I am sure that they feel exactly the same. This is a modern problem born of a complex society, but it visibly destroys families and neighbourhoods irrespective of wealth, creed, colour or religion. It cuts across all boundaries.
	We politicians see only the tip of the iceberg—in our surgeries, in individual cases that come to our attention and, sadly, through friends and their children. We may be able to help in a few cases through direct intervention, but we can make a real difference as politicians by constructing a legislative framework that allows the law to protect the vulnerable and punish those who prey on them.
	This Bill attempts to do just that by clarifying and reinforcing the laws surrounding the abuse of dangerous drugs. The first provision will ensure that there is no doubt that, if anyone is caught dealing for the third time, there can be no extenuating circumstances. There will be a guaranteed sentence of at least seven years—and it will mean seven years when a Conservative Government come to office. I was alarmed to read that only six hard drug dealers have been given a mandatory minimum sentence since 2000. That is hardly a message of deterrence from a Government who boasted that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
	The second provision imposes a custodial sentence on someone caught dealing class A drugs to a minor. Earlier this week, the Government made an admirable attempt in the Drugs Bill to protect children in their school environment from drugs dealers. I commended the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), on clause 1 of that Bill, which is now going to another place. During the Committee that considered the Bill, she accepted Opposition amendments to strengthen it but did not go far enough in clause 1. Instead of offering full protection to children in and around school premises, she sought to leave in the Bill exclusions about the vicinity of a school and timing exclusions. That means that if a child goes to school premises—a place where that child is comfortable—at 10 o'clock at night or a couple of hours after the school has shut to meet a dealer, the Bill will not protect that child or provide for the aggravated offence. It was a missed opportunity.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has studied the Drugs Bill closely and he agrees that the message to parents, children and, more important, to drugs dealers must not be diluted. The Government Bill has diluted that message. At least this Bill reinforces the message that should come from Government, irrespective of any political position.
	I have looked at the provisions for the commission in my hon. Friend's Bill. Again, I throw a challenge to the Minister. I want her to accept the proposal. Unfortunately, earlier this year the Government rejected the reasonable proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug. If the Government have set their face against that, let them have the courage of their views and convictions that that drug is harmless and let them bring in the commission to establish what they believe they are saying about the use of the drug.
	I disagree with the Government's position. I think that they will disagree with even so much as formulating the commission because they have set their face against any message going out that says that drugs are bad for people. They have bought the harm reduction message rather than the abstinence message. They have been moving in the wrong direction. A Conservative Government would move us back in the right direction.
	We should look at the Brixton experiment—the trial project in 2001–02 to caution rather than arrest those who were caught with cannabis. Metropolitan police figures show that between 2001 and 2002, there was a significant increase in the area in drug-related offences. It was alarming. Incidents of drug trafficking increased from 18 to 36, a 100 per cent. increase. Incidents of possession rose from 76 to 242, a 218 per cent. increase. Other drugs offences increased by 300 per cent. Total drugs offences increased by 197 per cent., which is alarming. Many people spoke out against that. Sir John Stevens said: "Children are massively vulnerable." He did not think that anything that exposed children to more contact with drugs should be tolerated. The project did expose more children to contact with drugs. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police noted:
	"Our school officers report that children feel that the police are sending mixed messages to young people by on the one hand trying to deter young people from abusing and experimenting with drugs, and yet appearing hypocritical by not strictly enforcing the drug laws."
	That is the environment that has been created by the Government. It is against that background that my hon. Friend is putting forward the proposal for the commission. It is something that should bear consideration.
	The hon. Member for Crawley made some valuable points relating to the medical profession. I agreed with a lot of her speech. Her position on the all-party parliamentary drugs group is well known. However, I hope that, like me, she was alarmed to read the results of a major study by researchers from the Netherlands, which surveyed 2,500 young people between the ages of 14 and 24. That study, which is I believe was published in an online version of the British Medical Journal, followed 2,500 young people living in Munich, Germany. It showed that regular cannabis smoking increased the risk of developing psychosis by 6 per cent. over four years. There was a substantially greater impact on young people who had already been identified by psychiatrists—here I agree with the hon. Lady—as having the potential to become psychotic. The minute they took to regular cannabis smoking, they raised the risk of developing psychotic mental illness by 25 per cent.
	That needs to be looked at more carefully. More and more information coming in from the medical profession is pointing to the harmful effects of a marijuana or cannabis habit. It is essential that the Government do not sit back in a relaxed fashion and say, "It is all right if you have it for personal use and have a little bit. The police are not really going to pursue it", because real evidence is starting to come in from the medical profession that those drugs are particularly harmful.
	New medical information is becoming available. Another report says that regular users of cannabis could be putting themselves at risk of a stroke. It was published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry literally a couple of days ago. A 36-year-old patient was a sporadic user of cannabis. The first incident occurred after he took some cannabis—he only drank occasionally and was not a regular user of any other drugs or alcohol. He lost his ability to speak and a few hours later suffered convulsions. A brain scan revealed a patch of bleeding and a blood clot. A year later, again after a bout of cannabis smoking, he lost the ability to talk and experienced hemiparesis on one side of his body. Another brain scan revealed a further blood clot. He stopped using cannabis for 18 months but, unfortunately, fell back on his abstinence. He was unable to recognise sounds and there was more bleeding and damage in the area where the previous bleeding occurred.
	With that sort of information coming forward, the Minister has to admit that we need further and better particulars and that the message that has been sent by the Government on that drug does not contain enough warnings to our children and to the people who deal in drugs. As I said earlier this week in the Chamber, there is evidence that there is now far more cannabis being imported into this country and far more cannabis available on the streets the length and breadth of this country. As my hon. Friend said, the price of those drugs is coming down alarmingly. Drug dealers are treating them as loss-leaders to introduce young people—their market for the future—into the drugs culture.
	I do not want to delay the House any longer as I want to hear what the Minister has to say. However, I believe that the Government have done a disservice to our society in this area. They have been heading in the wrong direction and many people feel disillusioned and let down by their drugs policy. We want to give peace of mind to parents and security to teenagers so that they grow up free from drug dealing. We want to give families the security that comes from having a coherent, consistent and committed anti-drugs programme. That is what the next Conservative Government will give to this country.
	We will maximise on that area because the rewards are enormous. We can bring a generation of addicts back into society so that they can contribute to their communities. We can make sure that our children grow up in a safer and more secure society than the one we have inherited. That is what a Conservative Government will deliver after the next election, but in the meantime—in the absence of that Government, and without knowing quite when the election will come—I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on raising this important subject in the Chamber. The Government are determined to deal effectively with the menace that drugs cause in our community.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why, or why not, people were here this morning. It seems to me that the Bill's provisions are largely dealt with by existing legislation or can be dealt with in other ways, so hon. Members might be absent because, like me, they do not think that the Bill would necessarily move us forward. However, the discussion and unanimity of concern among Members about the harm caused by drugs and our determination to tackle that harm might help us to make progress.
	Let me explain why the proposals in the Bill are unnecessary and would not be effective. At first sight, the mandatory sentencing provisions might seem to be superficially attractive, but I am afraid that consideration shows them to be flawed and redundant. Section 110 of Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 already requires a court to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years where a person is convicted of a class A drug trafficking offence—including the offence of supply of a class A drug—that was committed after 30 September 1997. The date is important because of the principle of not imposing a retroactive penalty. If we believe that sentencing provisions have a deterrent effect, it is important that we do not create retroactive penalties.
	If, at the time the offence was committed, under the existing Act, the offender was aged 18 or over and had been convicted in the United Kingdom of two other class A drug trafficking offences, one of which was committed after he had been convicted of the other, the court may impose another sentence—that is, one of less than seven years—if it is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances that relate to any of the offences or to the offender that would make it unjust to apply a custodial sentence of at least seven years in all circumstances.
	The provisions in clauses 1 and 2 are inappropriate because they remove the discretion of the courts to impose less than the mandatory minimum sentence for a third section 4(3) offence. We believe that the courts must be given discretion to allow for particular mitigating circumstances in those cases where a seven-year sentence might not be appropriate. Examples include cases where there has been coercion or intimidation, where addicts are dealing very small amounts to fund their habit, or where schoolchildren are passing on drugs to their friends. In such circumstances, it is important that while Parliament sets a clear framework, we allow, where mitigating circumstances absolutely exist in a particular case, the judiciary to take those into account.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Geraint Davies: That is an important point. I am not against large corporations per se sponsoring events in schools, but we must think carefully about which organisations do it. There would be a big difference between sponsorship in a school by McDonald's and by a non-food product such as a toothpaste brand, for example—perhaps I should not mention names—if one could show that the toothpaste helped to prevent decay. Head teachers and governors should be careful about this, but I certainly do not think that it is a good idea for corporations promoting a lifetime's loyalty to consuming high fat, salt and sugar products to be allowed to sponsor schools. My approach is therefore slightly mixed, but I hope that it is clear.
	The issue of protecting children has been raised. Another issue is whether children should be protected from being bombarded in pre-school television schedules with imagery suggesting that eating unhealthy food is "cool". I am glad that the Government are now considering that.
	These problems have been known, and the Government are beginning to address them through the health White Paper, to which I was pleased to contribute on issues of advertising, targets for salt, sugar and fat and controlling clarity of labelling so that consumers know what they are eating. A great deal of labelling lacks clarity, and the highest consumers of low-nutrient products are least likely to look at labels and make such judgments. We need to make it easy for people to know what is good or not good for them, or what should be eaten in moderation.
	During the emergence of the health White Paper, I put forward a number of other ideas: making certain types of food, such as chips, unavailable in schools at certain times; controlling vending, which is a sort of Trojan horse of fat, sugar and salt to people who are trying to introduce a healthy food regime in schools; and keeping children in at lunchtime to increase participation in a healthy food regime. I have now compressed those ideas into the Bill, which I put out just before the Secretary of State made her welcome statement on raising school meal standards. I was also a supporter of the children's food Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley).
	The Secretary of State has issued minimum health specifications for processed foods such as burgers, sausages and cakes in terms of salt, fat and sugar, which I welcome, on the way towards tougher nutrient-based standards in 2006. She has introduced the idea of a schools food trust, giving independent support and advice for parents and schools, which the Bill specifically mentions. I shall refer later to my desire for a more pushy, comprehensive approach from that schools food trust to deliver standards rather than simply giving advice. She also mentioned the need for parents to have a greater role in terms of empowering parents to examine menus. I shall deal with that later in terms of the need to give parents the tools to bring about a healthy regime rather than talk about it without the knowledge needed to deliver that change.
	In November 2004, the health White Paper introduced vocational qualifications for school caterers. In July, local education authorities were given specifications for catering contracts to help get nutrition on to the agenda, as previously many LEAs were simply buying to a price as low as 37p per child, so the nutrient value of those meals was increasingly small. There is an argument for including nutritional value as well as cost in that tendering process. From September 2006, tougher minimum standards for meals and nutrient-based standards will be considered, of which I am also in favour. In the first instance, my Bill mentions food-based standards, with the aim of not having chips or deep-fried products on certain days. I welcome the aspiration, however, to move to a more scientifically driven, nutrient-based analysis, which is implicit in clause 7 in terms of nutritional standards and my recommendation that Ofsted should play a role in nutritional standards and measurement.
	Legislation is needed at some point, partly due to the extended school days. At the moment, education legislation does not cover the new breakfast clubs, after-school activities and so on.
	There is a new opportunity to make progress on some of these ideas. I hope that some of those contained in the Bill will be embraced in that process. Indeed, that is the Bill's purpose.
	Vending, which the Government have been looking at, is also addressed. The health White Paper showed that there was a demand among parents for a whole-school approach to healthy eating, including vending. It is refreshing to learn when we ask the public that they are in many respects ahead of the Government in pushing for such an approach.
	My proposals are about not a nanny state, but a public duty of care. In my view, the public agree with me that any Government should protect our children in the school environment in which they are educated and prepared for life. School is not a social club where people can choose whether to learn or to loaf about, so nor should they be able to choose to consume untold amounts of unhealthy food. A regime should be in place through which they can learn about eating healthily—and, hopefully, they in turn pass on that knowledge to their children.
	The Government have made other progress, but I will not refer to it all because if I did we would be here all day. However, I welcome the provision of free fruit or vegetables for four to six-year-olds who attend nursery. I hope that that will be extended because children need four or five portions of fruit or vegetables a day. According to one standard, at least one of the starchy foods—bread, potato, rice and pasta—should not be cooked in oil or fat. That is a fairly minimalist standard to adopt, but only 83 per cent. of schools deliver on it. In other words, the remaining 17 per cent. do not offer an option that is not completely immersed in fat or oil.
	One of the Bill's innovations is the concept of unavailability. Instead of simply requiring that a certain amount of healthy food be available, it requires that certain foods shall not be available on certain days, especially deep-fat fried vegetables and the like. It prescribes that, in the first instance, two days be fat-free, but the head or board of governors of a school could choose to provide healthy meals for the entire week, as Jamie Oliver wants. I support that idea as well, but this provision is a more modest approach to meeting that ambition.
	The Bill requires the unavailability of food low in nutritional standards for a minimum of two days, but as I said, that can be extended. Interestingly, the Health Committee found that many schools offered a cafeteria-style approach, and the Consumers Association said that the majority of school lunch menus read like a fast-food menu. That is cause for alarm and a reason to make certain types of food unavailable.
	The aim is to improve food standards with a move towards a nutrient-standard approach. I hope that the Government will accept such a system by September 2006; currently, they are prepared to look at doing so. I commend what Jamie Oliver is doing. He wants all meals to be healthy, which is the ideal, but as the Opposition mentioned earlier, a problem arose in a school in Hull in that regard. It provided healthy meals free to everybody, but unfortunately the children and/or their parents boycotted them. They simply did not consume them and took lunchboxes to school instead. That underlines that we must be realistic in making the transition from unhealthy to healthy food.There is also the question of how tasty healthy foods are. My guess is that the healthy food in Hull was not cooked by Jamie Oliver and that it was not as attractive as it might have been. We need support in that regard.
	I understand that, initially, Jamie Oliver experienced a problem with take-up of his healthy food—until it poured with rain. The kids could not be bothered to leave the school and to go to the local chip shop, so they ate his food. After that, the participation rate started to improve.
	That brings me to another central feature of the Bill: the power of head teachers to stop children leaving school at lunchtime. Obviously, I cannot impose rain—even I cannot do that—but children could be gated. If parents and governors allowed it, the school could keep the children in, which would make more of them eat school meals and would spread the fixed costs over more meals so that more could be invested in catering facilities and training. The Local Authorities Catering Association and its head Neil Porter have been going on about the need for more investment to raise nutritional standards. I do not for a moment rule out more investment, but by keeping children in we would cover the overheads in time.
	Such a move would also be welcomed by local communities, as antisocial behaviour often takes place outside schools at lunchtime. It should be encouraged by the Government and local authorities and embraced by schools. It would be up to individual governors and heads to deliver it, but I am sure that it would be supported by parents and local communities.
	Jamie Oliver says that he is spending just 37p per school meal. The average investment is 45p. The largest private sector provider, Compass, tenders for only 55p. If we add labour costs of about 65p, a margin of about 8p and administrative costs of about 15p, we end up with a price of £1.30 or £1.40 per meal. If raising the food cost from 40p to 50p would make a massive difference to the nutrient content, that would be an investment worth making. Incidentally, public schools spend twice as much on ingredients. I am not saying we should necessarily do the same, but Mr. Oliver is clearly finding it difficult to deliver on 37p, so we should consider such action if we want better nutrition.
	We have a long way to go. A number of local education authorities, including Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Kingston, do not even have facilities for preparing hot meals, which is disgraceful. We need more investment in training, equipment, eating space and better food. Local authorities that have "died" in terms of delivering any meals at all, let alone nutritious meals, may need support, but we should adopt a targeted approach rather than just saying, "Here's the money, chaps" and bailing them out. Over time, participation rates should pay for higher fixed costs.
	I support the nutrition-based approach that is being considered for September 2006, and the Bill is consistent with that. I also support the Children's Food Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, and I support what Jamie Oliver is aspiring to do—get junk food out of schools. As well as being consistent with those ideas, however, my Bill allows the gradual elimination of chips, although not necessarily an immediate ban in all schools, which could lead to boycotts and an exodus. It also provides for minimum standards accredited by Ofsted, so that parents know that those standards are being delivered rather than just seeing plates of food.
	There has been a move towards power for parents and schools to choose to keep children in at lunchtime, and in some schools that is already happening. I think the Government should encourage it, although I realise that some schools will have limited space and a limited number of teachers available at lunchtime. However, we and parents should encourage that change. Local education authorities should facilitate it. Parents want it and we should encourage them to demand it.
	The Secretary of State has pressed for greater parental control. I am all in favour of that. Under clause 7, Ofsted could provide parents with the objective reality of the nutritional standards being delivered at the school, so that they can put pressure on caterers to deliver better standards. Unless the parents have a clear measurement of nutritional standards in the Ofsted report, they cannot enforce better, healthier standards for their children.

Geraint Davies: I agree—it is a key point. The delivery of nutritional standards at home is a central problem. Indeed, some parents call for the nutritional standards at home to be available in school. They think, "Why should Johnny not eat this pre-prepared convenience meal at school? That is what we eat at home." The question is, what should be done about that? My focus has been on delivering nutritious meals in school, but the Government should go further than that in their relationship with the parents. Now that Jamie Oliver has delivered this menu of nutritious meals at affordable prices, there are many opportunities for such menus to be available to everyday families, including mine and possibly my hon. Friend's.
	A lot of families are on a budget and face time constraints. They think that the easiest thing to do is to bung the meal in the microwave. If they know that a tasty, nutritious and attractive meal within budget has been designed to be prepared on-site in a school and can be prepared in a limited time, say 20 minutes, they may want to offer that sort of menu option to their children and family over a period of weeks. There is hope. We can now begin to go to families to enable them to provide more nutrition, rather than to take the easy route of low cost, high salt, high fat and sugar impregnated convenience food. It is a great challenge and a central point. I agree with what has been said.
	There is a role for the Government and schools to reach out in the community as well.That being said, this is not about a top-down nanny state—it is an empowerment of families, parents, pupils and governors to enable them to have the tools to deliver nutritional benefits which, down stream, will mean less obesity and fewer health problems associated with bad nutrients and bad meals.
	The Secretary of State has announced the new school food trust, which is mentioned in the Bill. The idea of that is to provide independent support to schools and parents. It will comprise a collection of people from food industries, caterers and nutritionists. I agree that it is a valuable body to set up. The Bill, I hope, makes it clear that it should have some teeth. Clause 4 says that its purpose should be not just to provide advice, but to
	"improve the standards of school meals."
	There is an issue about delivery of standards, rather than hoping for the best. That organisation should be accountable and expected to deliver, alongside Ofsted, on school nutritional standards, with pressure coming from parents, too.
	We have a duty to act to ensure that the changes that parents want take place. One of those relates to vending, which can be the Trojan horse that delivers products of bad nutritional value into schools. Obviously, many schools rely on vending machines—£10 million of revenue comes from them. A survey commissioned by The Guardian found that 70 per cent. of parents wanted vending machines taken out of schools. Vending is an important issue. The net calorific increase for children during the day is from in-between snacking, which is central to the problem.
	Some vending can provide nutritious, tasty and healthy food. I spoke to the biggest non-branded vending caterer, Compass, which pointed out that its machines, which are healthy, would deliver as much revenue as branded and less healthy machines. In my view, nutritious products can be delivered through vending, but we should not have a free for all of chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks impregnated with sugar freely available throughout the school day to our children. The Government have moved forward with the idea of best practice. The healthy schools programme will give accreditation to healthy schools, but not to schools if the vending facilities are not appropriate. We can see how that goes, but we should ensure that there is no unhealthy vending in schools.
	On the question of schools that provide breakfast, lunch and after-school meals—allowing parents to participate in the labour market—parents want an assurance that their children will be looked after under a regime of nutritious, healthy food, rather than what is provided now. That is why we need legislation to help to deliver nutritional standards. We await that and I hope that the Government will incorporate some of these ideas in that legislation. In the meantime, we must encourage and support parents in meeting the challenges and put pressure on schools to drive up participation in school meals and the nutritional standards thereof.
	I have welcomed the changes that the Government have made so far in terms of exercise, the health White Paper and school meals. I am glad, like other hon. Members, to be part of that drive towards a healthy change. I believe fundamentally that we should keep our eye on the prize—that, over time, we can deliver better nutrition, health, behaviour, attainment and a better future for healthier children who live longer and achieve more. That is worth all our efforts. After all, Britain's future is our children's future; let us make that future a brighter and healthier future for all.

Paul Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on his good fortune in gaining a high position in the ballot and on proposing this important debate and Bill. The Bill is laudable in its aims and Liberal Democrats would not oppose it at this stage, although we would like to see amendments tabled if it progresses. The subject is too often overlooked.
	As a parent myself, I know that there is often a sense of frustration. We expect our children in school to receive the best quality education and the best quality food. Too often, as the hon. Gentleman said, one sees vending machines supplying some of the worst possible foods and clearly sub-standard food is provided in canteens—assuming the school has a canteen. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that some schools cannot even serve hot food and I hope that the Minister will explain what is being done about that. We want schools and local education authorities to have autonomy to make their own decisions, but surely children in Britain in the 21st century should be able to look forward to hot, decent food.
	Overall, the Bill is laudable, but I foresee complications in trying to stop children from going to certain places. I would have thought that legislation already provides powers to ensure that children do not stray off site without permission from their parents or teachers and unless they are supposed to be elsewhere. It is difficult during lunch breaks to specify where children should be. I would also be concerned if children were told to stay indoors at lunchtime because, as the hon. Gentleman said, we want them to take more exercise and to be involved in more sporting activities, so we want to encourage them to do other things.

Geraint Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that what follows from that is not that we cannot deliver nutritional standards, but that we face a challenge to provide tasty meals that children will eat? That is the very challenge being confronted by Jamie Oliver. Surely it should be our ambition to square that circle, if it can be done.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend pre-empts me. I shall refer to those specific points later.
	Our new policies on children's centres and extended schools have provided scope for schools to take a lead in helping families with children to prepare and cook better. The number of growing and cooking clubs is increasing. Together with increased visits to city farms and the countryside, those clubs are making a huge contribution to helping children to understand better where food comes from and the benefits of fresh or locally sourced food.
	We welcome the debate because we want to engage the wider community. The food industry, caterers, nutritionists and food interest groups can have a major role to play in setting up a new independent school fund trust. That would enable the industry to make a valuable contribution to improving food and drink provision in schools. Working together in that way, we can set the agenda. The trust will be in an ideal position to give independent advice and support to schools and parents to improve the standards of school meals.
	Yesterday, we issued a consultation letter to the food industry, caterers, nutritionists and many others who can make a difference to school food. The letter covered many of the issues that I have just described, but it also asked for their views on the new charitable school fund trust. We want the trust to drive through reform with the help and support of a full range of stakeholders as part of the drive to emphasise the key importance of consultation as we work together to set the future agenda, and I want to spend a little time talking about the importance of that to pupils.
	Taken together, the measures will ensure what we all want: a better meal and a better deal for school children. We are already building on what is there. Every four to six-year-old—nearly 2 million children—is eligible for a free portion of fruit or vegetables every school day. Current minimum nutrition standards in secondary schools ensure that at least two items from food groups such as fruit and vegetables, and sources of protein, are always available during lunch service. There is education on healthy living and eating during personal, social and health education, science and sport lessons. Sport is particularly important to the overall improvement of the health of young people and children. The Government have allocated some £1.5 billion to improve sport and PE in school.
	The aim is that schools will offer healthier food to their pupils throughout the school day. Parents will play a bigger part in ensuring the highest standards for school meals. The food industry will be able to play its part in setting a healthy food agenda. All in all, pupils will be able to choose healthier food and have the support that they need to make the right choices. The aim must be for them to be able to do that at any time, inside or outside the school gates.
	I now come to the specifics of why the Government will oppose the Bill. I welcome the debate and the interest that my hon. Friend Bill has generated. We feel that, although we should of course back a lot of the issues that he wants to raise, we cannot back the Bill and the Government are already doing quite a lot. We are already moving forward with improvements to school food and nutrition and, at this stage, we do not need unnecessary legislation to sustain that progress.
	I want to give a number of reasons why we should oppose the Bill. First, we are already considering ways to educate children in healthy eating habits and to help every school ensure the highest nutritional standards for the food that it serves up. There is a lively debate about whether we should adopt nutritional standards based on food groups, as the Bill advocates, or standards based on nutrient intake, as advocated by the Caroline Walker Trust and the Scottish Executive. We have commissioned an expert group to advise us on the way forward—a way that is nutritionally robust, but also manageable for schools. We hope that Members will agree that that aspect of the Bill is premature, as the expert group will not report until the end of the year. When it does, we already have legislation that we can and will use to introduce tougher standards that schools are willing and able to implement.
	Introducing legislation that puts the onus on the local education authorities to ensure minimal standards is not the way the go. Two of the principles of the new relationship with schools are that we reduce bureaucracy and encourage both independence and collaboration where required, because each school is best placed to make the most appropriate decisions for its pupils.
	I note that the Bill envisages putting the school food trust on a statutory footing. In my view, that is unnecessary. We are drawing up the necessary legal documents at present and believe that the trust can operate effectively in the normal framework of charitable and company law.
	We cannot persist with a culture in which a central directive tells schools everything that they can and cannot do, such as exactly what a vending machine can and cannot sell. One size does not fit all. We are committed to giving schools the flexibility, autonomy and support that they need to make the day-to-day decisions for themselves. They know the needs, interests and attitudes of their pupils and what needs to be done to secure the best education for every child. Our role must be to provide a framework, guidance and support that they need to make those decisions. I want to make it clear that we do not support the sale of food and drink in vending machines if it has a poor nutritional content, particularly if it is high in salt, fat and sugar.
	We are producing guidance for schools through the food in schools programme and that will be available soon. I know that major suppliers of vending products and catering services are re-examining their approach to vending, in consultation with schools. The important thing is that schools take a holistic view of the full range of provision to ensure that vending sits comfortably with that broader policy.
	It is up to schools to determine the lunchtime policy that works best for them. That is not a matter for legislation. Schools that require learners to remain on site at lunchtime and offer constructive activities and appropriate supervision during the lunch hour find that learning behaviour and attendance are better as a result. Supporters of the Bill have a valid point in that too many secondary school pupils are consuming unhealthy food purchased from premises around the school at lunchtime and we know that some pupils eligible for free school meals opt to do that rather than eat in school. But lunchtime management is up to individual head teachers, and heads must consider cover arrangements carefully to keep them in line with the school work force agreement.
	Lunchtime activities can be part of extended services, which are essential to the drive to give every pupil the opportunity, provision and support to fulfil their potential and make the best choices for themselves in school and beyond. School leaders know best where they have the capacity and resources to offer high quality and enjoyable activities in a secure and stimulating environment.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Peter Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He is a very experienced Member of the House, and he spends far more Fridays in the Chamber than I do. He must have seen the title of my Bill: it refers to a right of reply to material that is published in newspapers and other publications. It does not, for example, seek to replace the libel law. If someone is libelled, they have recourse through the courts, although it is not always easily available to them. Its limited scope is one of the merits of the Bill.
	The important, and uncontroversial, principle that the Bill seeks to establish is that if we cannot trust the information that forms the basis on which we make judgments and form opinions, our form of government is critically undermined. I want to discuss the relationship between trust and truth, as that will explain why I want to promote the Bill.
	I understand that we might not be too far away from a general election. Recent trends have shown falling turnouts, a phenomenon that should concern us all. The press frequently insist that the fact that people are becoming disengaged from politics is the fault of the politicians, who have forfeited their trust. It is interesting, however, to note that newspaper sales are also tumbling dramatically. Compared with five years ago, 1.75 million fewer newspapers are now being sold every day. Why should that be so?
	Last year, the Committee on Standards in Public Life undertook an interesting survey—it sent its findings to hon. Members, so they might be familiar with them—and found that only 27 per cent. of the public trusted Members of Parliament. Even more revealing was the finding that only 7 per cent. trusted tabloid journalists. Another, more encouraging finding was that 47 per cent. trusted their own Member of Parliament. I am sure that we all feel reassured by that statistic, but what it tells me is that the closer people are to events and personalities, the more likely they are to place their trust, and the more remote they are, the more difficulty they have.
	Despite the loss of trust in politicians as a class, however, and despite the decline in trust in journalists, 64 per cent. of people said that their opinions were shaped at least in part by what they read in newspapers. So, when citizens are invited to decide who runs the country in a few weeks' time, we could have the strange state of affairs in which their judgment of politicians they do not trust will be based on what they read in newspapers they do not believe. That is a problem for all of us—politicians, the press and the public—and we need to take action to arrest the downward spiral.
	Politicians are accountable, and we will find out at the general election whether the people to whom we are accountable want to put their cross in our box. We are also accountable in other ways: Ministers are accountable to the scrutiny of the House, and each of us is accountable to the standards commissioner. The press is not accountable, however. Journalists are not accountable for what they write, and there is very little redress if what they write is wrong or untrue. My Bill does not propose in any way to curtail their freedom or infringe their rights. It is fundamental to our liberal democracy that politicians should not have the last word and that the press plays a central role as a check and balance against our excesses or our temptation to exceed acceptable limits. I want the press to continue to be free to publish without fear or favour, but I want the Bill to establish a new right for the public to correct inaccuracies that misrepresent, damage or mislead them. I do not wish to curtail press rights other than the right to misrepresent individuals and mislead the public. The press should not have an unfettered freedom to misinform or deceive.
	We all understand that there are intense pressures these days on journalists. We live in a 24-hour news culture, with increasingly powerful global media corporations in competition with each other, and newspapers and publications forced to compete with the internet. All that imposes pressure on newspapers in particular to out-scoop, out-sensationalise and outsell their rivals. In those circumstances, it is inevitable that corners get cut.
	We are all familiar with the problems that politicians encounter with the press—the ferreting out of facts has given way at least to some extent to creating perceptions about facts. It is so much easier to create a perception than to undertake the time-consuming and exhaustive research that is infinitely preferable. We see newspapers reflecting prejudices rather than presenting news to their readers. We see a blurring of the distinction between the reporting of events and the editorial line that the newspaper takes on those events. We see less room for proper debate in the pages of newspapers or for the reporting of debates, including debates in the House of Commons. We see a much keener appetite to denunciate those who come forward with ideas rather than to explore and contribute to those ideas. We are also seeing an unhealthy phenomenon, particularly in Sunday papers, in which agenda-setting political stories are based on a series of unattributed and often fabricated quotes in order to generate controversies that otherwise would not exist. All that is very unhealthy.
	Our response as politicians is frequently to spin our side of the story and to come forward with a soundbite that we believe might capture a headline. We see lobby groups and in particular single issue groups tempted to take up ever more extreme positions, and to think up ever more dramatic stunts to get themselves into the newspapers. As the standard of debate declines, people's faith in what they read in newspapers also diminishes. There has been little sign of change for the better. It is now 15 years since David Mellor famously warned journalists that they were drinking in the last chance saloon, and little has happened to stop the bingeing.
	This is not just a question of values, principles and what underpins democratic life; inaccurate reporting has victims. It is interesting that 94 per cent. of those who complain to the Press Complaints Commission are what it classifies as "ordinary people"—not celebrities or politicians, but ordinary men and women, and some 56 per cent. of their complaints are about inaccuracy.
	Inaccurate reporting, casual indifference to the reputation of others, and not having the time or inclination to check facts or to corroborate them destroys people's reputations, damages their livelihoods and turns their lives upside down. Legion case studies have been put together over many years, particularly by MediaWise, to illustrate the damage that can be done to the lives of individuals who are the subject of media attention that is less scrupulous than it ought to be. They have no adequate recourse or redress. As I suggested in my response to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), they might be able to take their case to a libel court, but in doing so they have to be pretty confident of ultimate success. They also have to be wealthy and very patient. The risks are very high.
	In fact, in such circumstances most people do not want monetary compensation; they simply want the record set straight, and quickly. The PCC is their only other means of achieving redress, if redress it is. Last year, it received more than 3,600 complaints—just under 40 per cent. more than in the previous year. It adjudicated only 23 of those complaints and upheld just 11: 0.3 per cent.

Eric Forth: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why none of the Bill's sponsors have bothered to turn up to support him or it? He seems to be in a rather lonely position. Although he has cited support from people who are, no doubt, important and influential outside the House, we are legislating here today. Where are his friends?

Paul Marsden: The News of the World employed a gentleman to impersonate a police officer. He gave a false name, and I reported that to the police who said that in the circumstances they could not prove the case. They added that impersonating a police officer was "a grey area." I thought that was appalling. The journalist was trying to find out personal information about myself which he wanted to use to ascertain where I was, causing an enormous security scare. That is the sort of level they will go down to—in the gutter—to try to smear people.
	The Bill is a modest measure, proposing that when the press does such things and misreports the facts, people should have a right to reply. It is time to end the abuses, and I hope that the Government will not only support the Bill, but look at other ways of tackling the abuses committed by this tiny minority of journalists. The PCC is a pretty toothless being, which, while well–meaning, does not do what it should be doing. Obviously the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill.

John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. We have heard that it is a modest measure. If this Bill is modest, thank goodness it is only one measure. I am afraid that the Conservative party does not think this Bill to be necessary or desirable. In fact, it is a rather lengthy Bill, which will be a gift to lawyers.
	The Bill would replace the Press Complaints Commission, which has been successful as a mediation service, with a rather complicated adversarial one to address a non-existent problem. The Conservative party supports the right of the press to regulate itself, which is a crucial part of our press freedom. Too many of our freedoms seem to be disappearing under this authoritarian Labour regime, which we hope will not continue to run for more than a few more weeks.

Derek Twigg: The majority of PCC members are lay members, and I shall return to that point later.
	Clause 24 of the Bill would place a duty on the board to prepare and issue codes of practice to editors and others responsible for editorial material. Although the Bill specifies that those codes should address matters relating to the right of reply in particular, the board would not be constrained from addressing any other issues. That could lead to great confusion. Which codes of practice should editors follow—those issued by the board or by the PCC? The Bill also states that such codes of practice would have to be subject to consultation with the Secretary of State. The prospect is of a board appointed by the Secretary of State, with a duty to issue codes of practice regulating the press's behaviour, the contents of which would have to be the subject of consultation with the Secretary of State. However, we are told by my hon. Friend that the Bill would not constitute interference with a free press.

Derek Twigg: I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is a particular issue about press freedom and the way in which we monitor and manage it, and use the code of practice. That is why this issue is different and I shall continue to explain that as I proceed with my speech.
	The fact is that, in the Government's view, the PCC's code of practice already provides a satisfactory means of redress for those who feel they have been misrepresented in the press. Clause 1 of the code requires that
	"a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence."
	A failure to do that would be a breach of the code. The PCC already fulfils the role of an adjudicator. Its independence is guaranteed by a lay majority of 10 to seven, its chairman is independent of the industry, and its staff has no connection to the industry. When the code has been breached and no satisfactory remedial action offered, the PCC will require a newspaper to publish, in full and with due prominence, a critical adjudication of the editor. That does not require a lengthy and costly legal battle.
	It is significant that no editor has ever refused to publish the PCC adjudication and adherence to the PCC code is written into many editors' contracts. Furthermore, the complainants have the right to appeal on procedural grounds to an independent chartered commissioner, who can ask for the matter to be reconsidered.
	As far as the maintenance of a database is concerned, the PCC currently publishes details of all its adjudications on its website, and it contains summaries of all resolved complaints, including details offered by the newspaper in each case. The PCC also publishes an annual report that provides an analysis of its work over the preceding year, as well as a bi-annual report providing a summary of its cases.
	To conclude, I am afraid that the Bill would establish statutory regulation by the back door and I suspect that, once a board was established, there would inevitably be calls to extend the scope of its remit. After all, the need for accuracy is only one part of a larger range of issues considered by the PCC, and there will be others who argue with a passion equal to that of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and his supporters, that their particular concern can be addressed only through statutory means. Once we have breached the principle of press freedom—let us be clear about this—we will find ourselves on a very slippery slope.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr.   Stringer) on securing the debate and I acknowledge the considerable interest that he and hon. Friends in his area have in issues that affect the national health service, including the subject of today's debate. They have raised them with Ministers on several occasions, both recently and over a longer period.
	I want briefly to deal with some specific issues, but I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we should first acknowledge the good work that is being undertaken in the city of Manchester and in the Greater Manchester area generally, and pay tribute to all the staff who are involved in providing health services in the city and the wider conurbation. Several colleagues in the health team had the pleasure of visiting them at the end of January and seeing the wide range of facilities and projects in the Greater Manchester area.
	My hon. Friend raised concerns about the impact of the 2001 census on health funding in Manchester. As he rightly said, I cannot respond on some of the issues to which he refers as they are matters for the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics. However, I am aware that several colleagues have raised the issues on a number of other occasions.
	The key to distributing funding fairly is the count of the number of people that each PCT serves. It is important that the best available population data are used for PCTs to meet the health needs of their populations. The aim is to enable each PCT to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need.
	For the 2003–06 round of allocations, which was announced in December 2002, the decision was made to use population estimates based on the 2001 census. Those were the most robust population data available at the time of announcing the allocations, if we bear in mind that the alternative was updated figures from the previous decade or so. The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which oversees issues relating to equity and the allocation of resources to the NHS, supported the decision to use the population estimates.
	Since the announcement of the 2003–06 allocations, the Office for National Statistics has made a series of revisions to the initial 2001 population estimates. The biggest change to the figures, to which my hon. Friend referred, were to those for Manchester, which has experienced an increase in population of some 26,200. I appreciate that it will come as a disappointment to my hon. Friends, but the decision has been made not to revisit the 2003–06 allocations. We do not make retrospective changes to revenue allocations because of the uncertainty that that would introduce into PCT funding in general.
	My hon. Friend asked about the intellectual rationale for that. It would create considerable uncertainty if the goal posts were moved retrospectively at the same time as future figures were presented to the PCT for planning. It would make life difficult. Money has to come out of a finite budget and when it has already been spent and allocated, finding the retrospective money could cause problems. I fear that my hon. Friend is wrong to say that other areas would not have similar claims, albeit sometimes on grounds other than the ONS statistics and the census figures, for example, data lag when there is a rapid increase in populations. We therefore have to make the best estimates that we can at the time. We may well have made different decisions about pace of change and movement to targets had different data been provided. The changes that my hon. Friend assumes might not therefore have happened.
	We are confident that using the data in the 2003–06 allocation was the right thing to do because they were the best data that we had at the time. For the latest round of allocations covering 2006–07 to 2007–08, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation recommended using 2003-based population projections as a basis. Although these population data are again based on the 2001 census, the census has been revised to correct the earlier undercounting in areas such as Manchester. This means that we now have a more accurate count of the population. In addition, these figures take account of the challenges faced in areas with growing populations. We are therefore using the best available population data, which take account of the undercount and of changing trends in population.
	I want to describe the picture of the health services in the Greater Manchester area, so as to set this issue in context. Waiting times are falling. No patients now has to wait more than nine months for in-patient treatment. That compares well with 1997, when more than 8,000 patients were waiting for in-patient treatment. In March 1998, more than 23,000 patients were waiting over 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment. Our latest data show this figure to have fallen to 3,536 patients. Furthermore, 99.8 per cent. of urgent referrals for suspected cancer are now seen by a specialist in two weeks in Greater Manchester. We have also seen a large increase in the numbers of consultants, GPs, nurses and health care assistants since 1997, and the list of capital developments and improvements to the equipment of the major services is too long to go through in the time available to us today.
	My hon. Friend mentioned health inequalities. He will realise that the Secretary of State and I—in my capacity as the Minister responsible for the northern region and for the public health agenda, including health inequalities—are keen to see that such inequalities are addressed. He is right to cite the different figures for life expectancy in Manchester and in those areas in which people are better off. The main causes of death in Greater Manchester are cancer and coronary heart disease, and the death rates involved are significantly higher than the rate in England as a whole.
	I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will be content that, overall, we are making massive improvements in driving down deaths from cancer, with a 12 per cent. cut in such deaths across the country since we have been in Government, and a 27 per cent. reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease across the country over the same period. However, inequalities such as those that my hon. Friend outlined are unacceptable, which is why we have established the biggest programme to tackle health inequalities ever seen in this country. I want to put it up in lights that it is very important for us to make progress on this issue. Indeed, our performance targets reflect the need to address inequalities. We have identified the areas most at risk from health inequalities, and the Manchester area is one of them. The three Manchester PCTs are part of the so-called spearhead group of 88 PCTs in which we are focusing on driving that progress forward.
	My hon. Friend has been generous enough to acknowledge that the latest round of allocations represents a record level of extra investment. In the Manchester area, this equates to an average increase of 9 per cent. for 2006–07 and 9.4 per cent. for 2007–08—an average of 19.5 per cent. over the two years. As a result, there will be record increases in funding in the Manchester area. The Central Manchester PCT will receive an increase of £62 million; North Manchester PCT will receive an increase of £50 million; and for South Manchester PCT, the increase will be £51 million. So considerable increases are going into the Manchester area.
	We have ensured, however, that we reflect the fact that there has been some discrepancy in regard to what has been done. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has had correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, and I believe that he has also met him to discuss these subjects on a number of occasions. My right hon. Friend wrote to my hon. Friend recently to explain that we had done something on what is called the capacity adjustment for the two years, 2006–07 and 2007–08, which has led to an additional £20 million a year going to the Manchester PCTs. That adjustment would previously have ended with 2006, and has been extended and made recurrent for 2006–07 and 2007–08. We have reflected that as far as possible in terms of additional money, and a sizeable additional amount is going into the Manchester area. In addition, both the 26,000 extra people and the capacity adjustment have been reflected, and full account has been taken of the deprivation and health inequalities needs of the Manchester area, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are enormously important and need to be addressed.
	The current position is that we use the best available data to make revenue allocations. For the reasons that I have given, we cannot revisit the allocations for 2003 to 2006. We have now used the updated population data for 2006–07 and 2007–08, and correct revisions for the undercounting in areas such as Manchester. Allocations for 2006–07 include projected increases in populations, which means that we have included the best available population data. As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, we have also made a record additional investment in the health service. We know that the Manchester health service does a fantastic job generally on a number of fronts, and my right hon. and hon. Friends were very impressed on their recent visit. I trust that the primary care trusts and other partners will work together with local MPs to use this record amount of money to continue to improve the health of the Manchester population in the next few years.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.